BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

2 results for “disallowance”+ Section 92A(2)(i)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai73Delhi49Bangalore33Kolkata30Chennai17Pune16Hyderabad8Ahmedabad4Cochin2Jaipur2Karnataka2Telangana1Indore1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)3Section 14A3Section 92C2Section 2632Section 142(1)2Disallowance2

M/S CENTURY INFRA POWER P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Bhanwar Singh (JCIT)
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 32(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

disallowed the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 8,42,792/- and therefore, as against the returned income of Rs. 3,89,66,220/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs 3,89,66,220/- by passing an order 3 M/s Century Infra Power P. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. DCIT, Jaipur u/s 143(3) read with section 144C

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271A

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Thus, we are of the view the ld. PCIT has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the IT Act and in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, we find merit in the grievance raised by the assessee, accordingly we hold that the ld. PCIT is not justified in directing